@Soon_U_Die:
Interesting topic, very expansive, so I’ll limit my comments to one.
Regarding Africa, the single best thing we could do to help them is eliminate our own subsidies and allow them the opportunity to trade. A good place to start would be in Agriculture where we (US, Can, Europe) waste billions upon billions of $ propping up our farmers and depressing the price of primary food stuffs. The result is massive overproduction in the developed countries and underproduction in the less developed countries. We actually produce more than enough food to feed the planet; we just produce it in the wrong areas and have no viable means of distributing it to where it is needed. If they were actually able to develop their own agriculture systems to the point where they could feed their own populations and export excess they would earn cash needed to buy infrastructure and finished goods. Easy in theory, but we all are quite guilty at the subsidy game, particularly in Agriculture and textiles etc.
SUD
Loathe as i am to argue with you, i think that you’re playing at not only an unpopular angle, but one that would hurt a lot of people. I agree that a WORLDWIDE loosening of subsidies would likely be “profitible” for all involved (i think we might even begin an WPC - wheat producing consortium). At the same time, an abrupt dropping of subsidies would have the potential to bankrupt many small farmers, leaving things wide open for larger “mega-farms” to purchase land far more cheaply than it’s worth, use an economy of scale to produce cheaply, and have a bit too much power. This is, of course, doing nothing for the developing world, except that many Canadian farmers have donated thousands of tonnes of grain to famine-stricken nations in the past. Would these mega-farms have the same charitible heart as the small farmers? Or would the almighty buck take too much room in front?
Hard to say how the 3rd world (Alabama, Zimbabwe, etc.) would benefit . . . .